Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1167 (GAU)

Fakrul Islam Choudhury v. State of Assam

2018-08-07

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department, Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel for the UGC. 2. The petitioner was a Subject Teacher in English in the Chargola Public HS School, Karimganj. By qualification he is a post graduate from Guwahati University and also has the B.Ed degree. The respondent No.5, on the other hand, was an Assistant Teacher in the Kaliganj Public HS School. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 participated in the selection process for the post of Principal in Kaliganj Public HS School. As per the advertisement dated 19.06.2016, one of the criteria to be followed for the selection as, reflected in the order dated 23.06.2016 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam is that in the selection process, 5 marks are also to be awarded for leadership skill. The office memorandum provides that the leadership skill is to be assessed on the basis of the result of HSLC/AHM/HSSLC examination of the years 2016 and 2015 of the school in which the concerned candidate was working. It is given to be understood that the provision of the office order of 23.06.2016 makes it explicitly clear that if the concerned candidate was working in the High School section of the school, the overall result of the school in the HSLC examination is to be taken into consideration and on the other hand, if the concerned candidate was working in the higher secondary section of the school, the result of the HSSLC examination is to be taken into consideration. 3. In the resultant selection process, as evaluated by the Selection Committee, the respondent No.5 was awarded a total marks of 11.5 and he stood in the first position, whereas the petitioner was awarded 9.74 marks and he stood in the second position. 4. The statement of marks by the Selection Committee contains a remark that the respondent No.5 had obtained his Masters degree from Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology & Sciences, Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh through off campus Distance mode and therefore a question was raised as to its validity and acceptability. 5. 4. The statement of marks by the Selection Committee contains a remark that the respondent No.5 had obtained his Masters degree from Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology & Sciences, Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh through off campus Distance mode and therefore a question was raised as to its validity and acceptability. 5. In this writ petition, the result of the said selection as well as the consequential appointment of the respondent No.5 as the Principal of Kaliganj Public HS School has been assailed. One of the grounds on which the writ petition is based is that for the criteria of leadership skill, the petitioner was given 3.09 marks out of 5, whereas the respondent No.5 was given 3.21 out of 5. According to the petitioner the pass percentage of the petitioner school during the year 2016 and 2015 was 88% and 89.6%, respectively, whereas the pass percentage of the respondent No.5 school was 31.7% and 33% respectively. According to the petitioner, it being so, the petitioner could not have been awarded 3.09 marks out of 5 for the leadership skill and at the same time, the respondent No.5 also could not have been awarded 3.21 marks out of 5. 6. The other ground raised by the writ petitioner is that the respondent No.5 having obtained M.A. degree from the Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology & Sciences, Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh, which is a deemed university, through off campus distance mode, the same is unacceptable and invalid. 7. Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, on the other hand, submits that result of the respondent No.5 school in the higher secondary examination was 81.2% for the year 2016 and 71% for the year 2015 and therefore, the marks allotted by the Selection Committee was appropriate. 8. In order to appreciate the submission of Mr. Purkayastha, this Court deem it appropriate to examine the order dated 23.06.2016 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam which provides as to how the 5 marks for leadership skills are to be allotted. The provision of the said order is as follows: "Based on the result of HSLC/AMH/HSSLC of current year (2016) and last year (2015) of the school in which the person is working at present". 9. The provision of the said order is as follows: "Based on the result of HSLC/AMH/HSSLC of current year (2016) and last year (2015) of the school in which the person is working at present". 9. A perusal of the criteria clearly indicates that the result of the school in which the person was working for the year 2016 and 2015 are to be taken into consideration, which would be based on the result of the HSLC/AHM/HSSLC examination. The very provision that the allotment of the marks would be based on the result of the HSLC/AHM/HSSLC examination of the given years of the school, is a clear indication that in the event, a candidate was serving in the High School section of a concerned school, the result of the HSLC is to be taken into consideration and if the concerned candidate was working in the Higher Secondary section of a given school, the result of the HSSLC has to be taken into consideration. 10. Any other interpretation would lead to an absurdity, inasmuch as, the purpose of evaluating the leadership skill is to assess the contribution of the candidate to the better performance of the school. If the performance of another section of the school is taken into consideration for evaluating the leadership skill of a teacher who was never associated with the said section, the purpose of evaluating the leadership skill will not be achieved and on the other hand it would result in a misconceived attribution to the leadership skill of the person. 11. In the aforesaid conclusion, in the present case, as the petitioner worked as an English Teacher in the Higher Secondary section, the result of the Higher Secondary (HSSLC) examination of the concerned school has to be taken into consideration and on the other hand, the respondent No.5 having been worked in the High School section, the result of the HSLC examination of the relevant years would have to be taken into consideration. 12. The result of the school of the petitioner for the year 2016 and 2015 in respect of the HSSLC examination was 88% for 2016 and 89% for 2015, whereas the result of the HSLC examination of the respondent No.5 school was 31.7% and 33% respectively. 12. The result of the school of the petitioner for the year 2016 and 2015 in respect of the HSSLC examination was 88% for 2016 and 89% for 2015, whereas the result of the HSLC examination of the respondent No.5 school was 31.7% and 33% respectively. In view of the variance in the results of the school of the petitioner and that of the respondent No.5, this Court is of the view that the 3.21 out of 5 marks allotted by the Selection Committee to the respondent No.5 for leadership skill and 3.09 out of 5 to the petitioner are highly disproportionate and without any basis. 13. Even if a rational view is taken, where the full marks for leadership skill is 5 marks, a result in the vicinity of 88% or 89% should atleast be within the range of 4 out of 5 marks and proportionately a result in the vicinity of 31% and 33% ought to be somewhere between 1.5 and 2. Any other award of marks in the circumstances would have to be considered to be arbitrary. This Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to be remanded back to the Selection Committee for a fresh assessment of the candidates, in respect of the criteria of the leadership skill. In doing so, the Selection Committee, as well as other authorities in the Education Department, shall form its view, as to whether the post graduate degree of the respondent No.5 obtained from Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology & Sciences, Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh through off campus distance mode is an acceptable and valid degree for the purpose or not. 14. It is further provided that till a fresh evaluation and decision is taken by the Selection Committee and the other authorities, the respondent No.5 shall continue to remain in his post as Principal of the concerned school, but such continuation shall be superseded by the subsequent decision to be taken upon undertaking the process as indicated. The process of reconsideration be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The process of reconsideration be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. It is further provided that the Selection Committee as well as the authorities in the Education Department of the Government of Assam shall also take note of the stand of the UGC as regards the degree offered by the aforesaid Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology & Sciences, Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh through off campus distance mode. 16. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed.